Add new comment

Thanks Mr Zahid Hussain for the intervention.
We should question the assumption of the study; like why we expect the remittance earner or the expenditure of the family has to contribute to directly “non-productive” or "productive" sectors? Any spending increase, i mean, an increase purchasing power directly or indirectly contribute to nation economy. And any spending on direct so-called "nonproductive" sector is though it is indirectly "nonproductive" but at the end actually directly spending on "productive" sector by some other group of people; means contributing to national economy. However, to be on the safe side, I want to follow your mentioned caveats as well. Still I want to apply the thumb rule, consumption is the one side of a coin where seeing the same coin from other side it is nothing but the "production".
Actually the BB study is based on a very over smart expectation. They are interested only on direct and "productive" effect which means it must have to be done only by the remittance earner and directly. That's why their study went straight to households, not the local hat or bazar as well. If they went there, I mean if it is included in the study to visit and collect data, they would find what type of retailing shop is increased, I believe it would be house building materials shop. And do we believe local cement factory, MS rod factory etc have not got any share of that spending? Do we agree spending in education and health treatment are actually "non productive"? Do we disagree the spending on loan repayment amount would not be reduced next year in the same locality?
So based on what we are sure and how we are sure, the remittance money has not contributed indirectly to the capital flows of the national economy (other than balance of payment)?
Indeed, the BB study is based on a very narrow pre-assumption and flawed argument as well!